Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 · Chapter XXIV: General Provisions As to Inquiries and Trials
Section 315: Accused person to be competent witness
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 from 1 July 2024. It still applies to matters and proceedings from before that date, as the repealing law provides.
In plain words
An accused is a competent witness for the defence and can give evidence on oath to disprove the charges against themselves or co-accused, but only on their own written request. Their choice not to testify cannot be commented on or lead to any presumption against them or co-accused.
- People facing proceedings under certain sections, such as security for peace or good behaviour, maintenance or nuisance, can also give evidence. In good behaviour cases, not testifying cannot be held against them.
A simplified explanation, prepared with AI assistance from the official text below and checked automatically against it for numbers and cross-references. The official text is the law and prevails over this summary. Not legal advice.
Official text
(1) Any person accused of an offence before a Criminal Court shall be a competent witness for the defence and may give evidence on oath in disproof of the charges made against him or any person charged together with him at the same trial:
Provided that—
(a) he shall not be called as a witness except on his own request in writing;
(b) his failure to give evidence shall not be made the subject of any comment by any of the parties or the Court or give rise to any presumption against himself or any person charged together with him that the same trial.
(2) Any person against whom proceedings are instituted in any Criminal Court under section 98, or section 107 or section 108, or section 109, or section 110, or under Chapter IX or under Part B, Part C or Part D of Chapter X, may offer himself as a witness in such proceedings:
Provided that in proceedings under section 108, section 109, or section 110, the failure of such person to give evidence shall not be made the subject of any comment by any of the parties or the Court or give rise to any presumption against him or any other person proceeded against together with him at the same inquiry.
Corresponding sections were matched by comparing the wording of both official texts, and for the IPC and BNS, also against a published correspondence table. Wording, punishments and structure often changed, so read both sections before relying on the match.
Source: India Code (Legislative Department), the text of the Act as it stood before its repeal. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here. Official text on India Code.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 315
-
Dashwanth v. State of Tamil Nadu
Trial Court found appellant guilty for the charges framed u/ss.302, 201, 363, 366 and 354-B of the IPC and s.8 r/w. s.7 and s.6 r/w. s.5(m) of the POCSO Act. An appeal against the said conviction was dismissed by the…
-
P Krishna Mohan Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh
Whether the statement of an accused u/s.161, Cr.P.C implicating co-accused can be looked into qua such co-accused at the stage of anticipatory bail or regular bail; whether the High Court exercised its discretion in a…
- Shri Bhagwan Yadav v. Adarsh Khandelwal
- Deepak & Anr v. State NCT of Delhi & Anr
-
Anees v. The State Govt. of NCT
Murder of appellant-accused’s wife in their house in which the appellant, deceased and their 5 year old daughter lived. s.106, Evidence Act, 1872 was invoked and the appellant was convicted u/s.302, IPC for the murder.…
- Fayaz Alam v. The State NCT of Delhi and Anr
- State v. Kamlesh Bahadur
- Sikander v. State
- M/S Alkem Laboratories Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.
- Sukumaran v. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police
- Suresh and Anr v. State of Haryana
- Jamnadas v. State of M.P.
- Raj Kumar Singh @ Raju @ Batya v. State of Rajasthan
- Mohammed Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab @ Abu Mujahid v. State of Maharashtra
- Mohd. Imran Khan v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
- Satyavir Singh Rathi v. State Thr. C.B.I
- State of M.P. v. Ramesh and Anr.
- State of Maharashtra v. Abu Salem Abdul Kayyam Ansari and Ors.
- Dehal Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh
- M/S. Mandvi Co-Op Bank Ltd. v. Nimesh B. Thakore
- Dinesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan
- Smt. Selvi & Ors. v. State of Karnataka
- Arun Nivalaji More v. State of Maharashtra
- State of Rajasthan v. Ram Bharosi and Ors.
- P.N. Krishna Lal and Ors. Etc. Etc. v. Govt. of Kerala and Anr. Etc. Etc.